It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Third Tower

page: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



No, actually, I listen to all the facts and I listen to all sides of the argument...which is why I know all your own conspiracy stories better than you do.


I am so glad no one takes some of you seriously. Defending the OS of 911 must be an emotional rollercoaster ride for some of you. But what can I say, defending the OS of 911 “proven lies,” one has to reject every piece of scientific evidence to sink their beliefs and opinions into it.

I do not believe you know all the conspiracies related to 911, if you did, you wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss every piece of scientific findings (evidence), or are you going to say that science is a conspiracy as well? Either way, you ”cannot disprove” WTC 7 was destroyed by the use of "unknown explosive devices," or prove how many people helped in setting up these devices in the WTC. Science proves demolition was used to bring down ALL three WTC and that something you cannot make go away.

edit on 28-11-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Science proves demolition was used to bring down ALL three WTC and that something you cannot make go away.


Once again you show your ignorance of science - there is zero proof any explosives were used to bring down any of the buildings, but your lack of understanding of science means you ignore the facts to fit a silly conspiracy theory that involves people sneaking tonnes of explosives into the buildings with no one at all noticing anything!



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Thanks for them two videos but to be honest, I don't see the "huge gash" in WTC7..
Maybe the smoke is covering it, maybe it aint there..
Either way, them vids don't show it..



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



Once again you show your ignorance of science - there is zero proof any explosives were used to bring down any of the buildings, but your lack of understanding of science means you ignore the facts to fit a silly conspiracy theory that involves people sneaking tonnes of explosives into the buildings with no one at all noticing anything!


Ignorance of science? Exactly what science are you talking about?
Why don’t you tell us how long would it take to smuggle explosives in all the WTC?
Why don’t you tell us how many people were used to smuggle in explosives?

Let’s see your proof, with credible sources, besides your beliefs and opinions.

Why don’t you explain how WTC 7 fell at free fall speed? I am sure you have credible evidence (sources) that supports your OS of 911?



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Let’s see your proof, with credible sources, besides your beliefs and opinions.


Read this, written by people who do it for their living, not silly conspiracy theorists who do not understand physics, science or how things actually work!

www.implosionworld.com...

Where is your proof that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings?

edit on 28/11/10 by dereks because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Oh, for the love of Ronald McDonald. You're telling me your entire rebuttal showing you aren't simply just quoting drivel you found on some internet web site is...posting a conspiracy theory video off some internet web site, and your entire rebuttal showing they're not just makign stuff up is...a video where someone is making up his own map of the flight path of flight 77 and passing it off as fact. Is this what you're telling me? Is this REALLY what you're telling me?


2 things.
1. He/They are just making a point that EYEWITNESS'S (of which you say more than anyone to listen to- and not to discount...YET YOU DO CONSTANTLY) saw the plane coming from the North, not the South, as the OS claims. I DID NOT mention that as an argument, for I have not investigated it all, their claims or what the OS says regarding that.
2.You have FAILED miserably at discounting the testimony of the cab driver, which is on VIDEO, telling two different stories. You failed miserably at even mentioning it, as it was the SOLE reason I even used this video.


All right, look. This guy supposedly interviewed eight different people and got eight different flight paths, which he plots out on an overhead map on his own. The eyewitnesses didn't draw them on any map, he did.


WRONG...Watch the video again. You are mistaken. He gave them a map and a pen/marker. Each one filled it out themselves.


It's pretty obvious that only one object hit the Pentagon, which means by this guy's own admission, seven eyewitnesses had misjudged the actual distance to the south the plane was. SEVEN FLIGHT PATHS ON HIS MAP ARE FALSE. Where is it written on what stone that all eight eyewitnesses didn't misjudge the actual distance to the south the plane was, meaning this guy is trying to pull a fast one and it actually flew even further to the south and therefore flew on the path all the OTHER eyewitnesses said it did? There were more people who saw the plane than just those eight, you know.


Yet, these are the mistaken ones. Right?


You accuse me of believing who I want to believe but from what I'm seeing you're doing literally the exact same thing. It has nothing to do with who believes what. It has everything to do with recognizing a con artist when we see one.


Ive read this guys blog and he is pretty emotional when discussing 9/11. That being said, you call him a con artist yet buy everything the government tells you. Furthermore, Im not believing what I want to believe at all. I WANT to believe that terrorist are solely responsible for this. I WANT to believe that we have the greatest government that stands for the people and would do no wrong. However, speaking of the latter, I know of lies the government have told the American people and world before and since.


No, actually, I listen to all the facts and I listen to all sides of the argument...which is why I know all your own conspiracy stories better than you do.


You claim to, but when something gets thrown in your face, you ignore it. I have seen it many times in many threads with you. The good thing, I only have to point to one to verify my claim.
THIS ONE. You have mentioned NOTHING regarding the credibility of the taxi driver. You skipped over it entirely.
I applaud you for trying to change the subject. I also applaud you for standing up for what you believe. I just dont see how you can be so blind.(this last statement is solely my opinion and not to be taken as an insult or the truth)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



Having this discussion with you is like talking to a brick wall.
I asked you some questions and you completely ignore them.


Ignorance of science? Exactly what science are you talking about?


I did not think you could answer this and you proved me right.


Why don’t you tell us how long would it take to smuggle explosives in all the WTC?
Why don’t you tell us how many people were used to smuggle in explosives?


No answer for this one either.


Why don’t you explain how WTC 7 fell at free fall speed? I am sure you have credible evidence (sources) that supports your OS of 911?


I didn’t think you could answer this one either as you just demonstrated.

If you think Googling “implosion world” is evidence as proof that WTC 7 was not demolished by demolition, it is not.


Read this, written by people who do it for their living, not silly conspiracy theorists who do not understand physics, science or how things actually work!

www.implosionworld.com...



not silly conspiracy theorists


If you do not believe there is any conspiracy into 911 then why don’t you except the OS of 911 as your truth.


Where is your proof that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings?


I have answered this question with evidence in many threads and you and I have already covered this many times.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
I asked you some questions and you completely ignore them.


They have been answered by myself and others many manytimes before - but you totally ignore them as they destroy your silly conspiracy theory


Ignorance of science? Exactly what science are you talking about?


The science and physics how demolition works, how much time and effort is involved etc.


Why don’t you explain how WTC 7 fell at free fall speed?


another truther lie, it only fell at free fall speed for a short time - and the reason has been given to you, but again you just ignore it as you know it destroys your silly conspiracy theory!


Read this, written by people who do it for their living, not silly conspiracy theorists who do not understand physics, science or how things actually work!

www.implosionworld.com...

the article that you totally ignored


If you do not believe there is any conspiracy into 911


When did I say that - here we have yet another 911 conspiracy theorist just making things up - why do they do this?


I have answered this question with evidence in many threads


No you have not, and why not read the article written by experts that disproves demolition?



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

another truther lie, it only fell at free fall speed for a short time - and the reason has been given to you, but again you just ignore it as you know it destroys your silly conspiracy theory!




The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

www.nist.gov...

Actually, it doesn't destroy anything. In the NIST report itself, which you want us to go by and believe as gospel, it states that free fall DID exist for approx. 2.25 seconds. When only speaking of 5.4 seconds, short time is the wrong term to use.
NOW....the NIST report also says that the building would have collapsed regardless of structural damage. So, were back to the point that fire caused a building to collapse from the bottom up in a 'demolition' manner while free falling for nearly 50% of the collapse.

Before I continue...I just want to know if this is your claim?



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm
So, were back to the point that fire caused a building to collapse from the bottom up in a 'demolition' manner while free falling for nearly 50% of the collapse.


It never fell from the bottom up - watch the full video of the collapse, not the "truther" edited version, and you will see the penthouse collapsing first, so it fell from the top down.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by DIDtm
So, were back to the point that fire caused a building to collapse from the bottom up in a 'demolition' manner while free falling for nearly 50% of the collapse.


It never fell from the bottom up - watch the full video of the collapse, not the "truther" edited version, and you will see the penthouse collapsing first, so it fell from the top down.


Not according to the NIST report. Ill post the page again where you can read it. Ill even point it out to you too.

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

Again here is the NIST website to verify.
www.nist.gov...

So again, I ask you...is this what you claim? Because this is NOT what your defending?
edit on 29-11-2010 by DIDtm because: fixed the bold areas



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm
Because this is NOT what your defending?


You are very confused, you claimed "caused a building to collapse from the bottom up"

Nowhere do the official reports state that - the report you quoted states "such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building"

So it was NOT from the bottom up - unless you think a building collapses from the bottom up when the highest part falls first....



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by DIDtm
Because this is NOT what your defending?


You are very confused, you claimed "caused a building to collapse from the bottom up"

Nowhere do the official reports state that - the report you quoted states "such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building"

So it was NOT from the bottom up - unless you think a building collapses from the bottom up when the highest part falls first....


I think if this is part of the NIST report then they ARE in fact saying it was from the bottom..

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse


"uniformily as a single unit" reads to me as bottom up..



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
WTC7 was designed and built as an emergency bunker. Able to with stand earth quakes ect. Rudy was supposed to be there in an emergency situation. Controlling any responces, to what ever disaster happened.
Lets not for get that the entire ENRON case documents/ evidence, was also in that building. What a nice way to get rid of any incriminating evidence. ENRON used to loan its air craft out to bush and also helped to finace his campaign to get into office.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by DIDtm
Because this is NOT what your defending?


You are very confused, you claimed "caused a building to collapse from the bottom up"

Nowhere do the official reports state that - the report you quoted states "such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building"

So it was NOT from the bottom up - unless you think a building collapses from the bottom up when the highest part falls first....


I think if this is part of the NIST report then they ARE in fact saying it was from the bottom..

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse


"uniformily as a single unit" reads to me as bottom up..


Thank you back in black.
This is exactly what it means. The question asked read as this:In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
Again from the same page of the website that I have already linked to twice.
This was NIST's rebuttal of WHY it fell as it did.

Now dereks....Im asking you again. Is this what your claiming?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm
Now dereks....Im asking you again. Is this what your claiming?


wtc 7 did NOT fall from the bottom up - despite your claim, unless you think a building collapses from the bottom up when the highest part falls first.... you are very confused again.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by DIDtm
Now dereks....Im asking you again. Is this what your claiming?


wtc 7 did NOT fall from the bottom up - despite your claim, unless you think a building collapses from the bottom up when the highest part falls first.... you are very confused again.


So you are saying the quoted report from NIST is wrong??

Therefore we should not believe anything NIST say..
Am I reading this right dereks??



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Actually I love this qoute from NIST..

While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event,

www.nist.gov...

Rare event aint the word for it!!!
It's only ever happened 3 times !!!!
All on 9/11...What are the odds ???????????????????????????



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



If you do not believe there is any conspiracy into 911


Lets use the whole quote that I posted to you shell we.


If you do not believe there is any conspiracy into 911 then why don’t you except the OS of 911 as your truth.


Lets not cherry pick parts of people posts and turn it into something else.


When did I say that - here we have yet another 911 conspiracy theorist just making things up - why do they do this?


You said it so many ways by making up nonsense in supporting your OS and by rejecting every piece of credible and scientific evidence that has been shown to you.

I do not have to make up lies in defending the truth, and most truthers do not make up lies to support the truth. The fact is, even on ATS it has been proven that many of the staunch defenders of the OS of 911 are the one’s caught lying in these 911 threads.


I have answered this question with evidence in many threads

No you have not, and why not read the article written by experts that disproves demolition?


In your desperation of trying to prove me wrong I will have to show you in many of my 911 threads. Not only have you made the unsupported claim that I never provided evidence to support my claims, but I can prove you are wrong.


Originally posted by impressme
Thermite Proven! Jones Science Proves Red Thematic Material not just Red Paint Chips

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The 911 Cat is out of the bag

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The 9/11 Hijackers are Alive and Talking!

www.abovetopsecret.com...


A 9/11 Victim's Family Member Asks for Help

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[color=gold]Twelve New England towns demand 9/11 reinvestigation

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Japanese Have Washington Post Running Scared over 9/11

www.abovetopsecret.com...


International Criminal Court complaint filed against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice and Gonzales


www.abovetopsecret.com...


60 Aerospace Engineers Call for a New 9/11 Investigation

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not to mention, my 911 Poll
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners, Faked!

www.abovetopsecret.com...


BBC now Admits Al Qaeda Never Existed!

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Obama Lied: Taliban Did Not Refuse to Hand Over Bin Laden

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9/11 Firefighters

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11

www.abovetopsecret.com...

These are only a few of my threads. Where are your threads that you have made to prove your OS is true, or in answering any of my questions with any credible sources? There are none. Yet you call me a Truthers liar, that’s really pathetic, don’t you think.
edit on 29-11-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
So you are saying the quoted report from NIST is wrong??


No, you are reading it wrong, and not understanding it. It fell from the top down , as you can see by watching the unediteded video of it collapsing



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join